hteasley
Pupil
QFT; beautiful lens. M2 + 35mm C-Biogon would be a great setup.
First Leica M Lens(es) Questions
- Thread starter jett
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 25
- Views 4K
QFT; beautiful lens. M2 + 35mm C-Biogon would be a great setup.
amyukie
Member
Jett, been there.. done that..
I had M6,M7, Leica, and Zeiss lenses. Now my current setup is M2+35 Cron ASPH.
Keep it one lens and one body. Don't buy Zeiss lens, my Planar was so sharp but had the wobble problem, it doesnt affect IQ but after market price is dropped like crazy. Buy Leica lens, expensive but built like a tank.
If I were you, I'd take M2 + 35 Cron (whatever version) + handheld meter (Sekonic 308b or s), go out, shoot, and forget about getting another gear for the next 10 years.
I had M6,M7, Leica, and Zeiss lenses. Now my current setup is M2+35 Cron ASPH.
Keep it one lens and one body. Don't buy Zeiss lens, my Planar was so sharp but had the wobble problem, it doesnt affect IQ but after market price is dropped like crazy. Buy Leica lens, expensive but built like a tank.
If I were you, I'd take M2 + 35 Cron (whatever version) + handheld meter (Sekonic 308b or s), go out, shoot, and forget about getting another gear for the next 10 years.
jett
Well-known
Thanks for the advice. I've looked through flickr but it's hard for me to judge; however, those Sonnar lenses are beautiful:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bw94/6223676266/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/salmonpink/2873797998/
I'm beginning to warm up to non-Leica alternatives. Probably won't be getting the 35mm Summicron, it just seems too expensive...I'd rather grab a Summaron if I decided that I "must" have a Leica 35mm lens, but I'd definitely consider CV, Zeiss, and Konica.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bw94/6223676266/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/salmonpink/2873797998/
I'm beginning to warm up to non-Leica alternatives. Probably won't be getting the 35mm Summicron, it just seems too expensive...I'd rather grab a Summaron if I decided that I "must" have a Leica 35mm lens, but I'd definitely consider CV, Zeiss, and Konica.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Is it me or was the first link you gave to flikr showing a portrait done with an ex-USSR Jupiter lens? and the second with a Leitz lens?
BTW, I didn't see anything special to the lens in either but the film and previous/subsequent actions (exposure, development etc) have affected them and given them that look.
Back to your choices; obviously the M2 because of the only other lens you've mentioned being 35mm. And do look at the Leitz glass in f/2.8 as well as f/2. Everyone of us has wanted an f/1 lens at times but we mostly manage without. The same could be said for f/2 and, FWIW, I own lenses from f/1.4 upwards and have a very good idea (from looking at my notes) of how often I need f/2.
Lastly, most of the lenses mentioned have been elderly and would, therefore, be second-hand. So build into your budget the price of getting them checked and perhaps adjusted. People have been known to drop lenses and lie when selling them. The XA you mentioned sounds to me like a case in point...
Regards, David
PS Although you mention QC issues with ex-USSR lenses the fact remains that there appear to be a lot of QC issues with other lenses recommended here. But as usual ex-USSR glasses are seen as half empty and other as half full. I find that very odd, especially as I often use the Jupiter-8 (a Sonnar copy in a 39mm screw mount) with an adapter in my M cameras.
Is it me or was the first link you gave to flikr showing a portrait done with an ex-USSR Jupiter lens? and the second with a Leitz lens?
BTW, I didn't see anything special to the lens in either but the film and previous/subsequent actions (exposure, development etc) have affected them and given them that look.
Back to your choices; obviously the M2 because of the only other lens you've mentioned being 35mm. And do look at the Leitz glass in f/2.8 as well as f/2. Everyone of us has wanted an f/1 lens at times but we mostly manage without. The same could be said for f/2 and, FWIW, I own lenses from f/1.4 upwards and have a very good idea (from looking at my notes) of how often I need f/2.
Lastly, most of the lenses mentioned have been elderly and would, therefore, be second-hand. So build into your budget the price of getting them checked and perhaps adjusted. People have been known to drop lenses and lie when selling them. The XA you mentioned sounds to me like a case in point...
Regards, David
PS Although you mention QC issues with ex-USSR lenses the fact remains that there appear to be a lot of QC issues with other lenses recommended here. But as usual ex-USSR glasses are seen as half empty and other as half full. I find that very odd, especially as I often use the Jupiter-8 (a Sonnar copy in a 39mm screw mount) with an adapter in my M cameras.
kawabata
Newbie
Actually I am the author of the Jupiter-3 picture on flickr referenced above. Thank you !
It is funny, because I recently got my first Leica, an M3. The picture above was made with a Canon 7.
As for the Jupiter and soviet lenses in general. I do believe the sonnar formula is visible here, although it would not happen in all pictures. I like this lens very much, an feel no need for trying a newer ZM Sonnat remake. It is true there are some quality variations among Jupiters. Also, and most importantly, they often have to be shimmed in order to focus correctly. So it can take some time and patience to obtain a lens one is happy with.
On the other hand, the price is very low wrt to Leitz. So it can complement a Summicron nicely, the two lenses being quite different.
A more fancy alternative is to find an original Zeiss 50/1.5. Either an LTM mount (rare), or an original Contax mount, which can be adapted to Leica mount through an adapter.
As for the M2 vs. M3 discussion, I agree it depends whether you are a 35mm fan (go M2) or love precise focus with thin DoF (go M3).
It is funny, because I recently got my first Leica, an M3. The picture above was made with a Canon 7.
As for the Jupiter and soviet lenses in general. I do believe the sonnar formula is visible here, although it would not happen in all pictures. I like this lens very much, an feel no need for trying a newer ZM Sonnat remake. It is true there are some quality variations among Jupiters. Also, and most importantly, they often have to be shimmed in order to focus correctly. So it can take some time and patience to obtain a lens one is happy with.
On the other hand, the price is very low wrt to Leitz. So it can complement a Summicron nicely, the two lenses being quite different.
A more fancy alternative is to find an original Zeiss 50/1.5. Either an LTM mount (rare), or an original Contax mount, which can be adapted to Leica mount through an adapter.
As for the M2 vs. M3 discussion, I agree it depends whether you are a 35mm fan (go M2) or love precise focus with thin DoF (go M3).
jett
Well-known
The first one was a Jupiter 3, a Sonnar design. The second one, the more modern ZM Sonnar. At this focal length/ speed, there is the Canon 50mm f1.5, Nikkor 50mm f1.4/f1.5, and the ofcourse the original Zeiss 50mm f1.5.
It's very possible that the lens may not be that special and it's just craze, but the bokeh just looks so much smoother to me. This may be in my head too 🙂. The second one is at f2 so it isn't just thin DOF, I don't think. But you're probably right in that, it has a lot to do with exposure, film, etc.
I shoot a lot of available light/indoor pictures and I need atleast one f2 lens. If I decide to stick with Leitz, then I figured that I can go 50mm f2 and a slower 35mm. I feel that f1.4/f1.5 can be too thin at times.
You're right in that I shouldn't overlook getting the lenses checked out/adjusted, I didn't really think about that too much. I'm going 2nd hand. And I'm going to atleast go with people on this forum who have a reputation or keh.com but with these old lenses, even that isn't always enough.
About the XA. There was nothing wrong with the camera per se, it was the design that I didn't like mostly. It was too small, unergonomic, light and automatic for my liking. I was fine with the patch and lens. They weren't Leica/Bessa quality, but I didn't expect them to be.
The USSR glass is controversial. It's a love/hate thing. I never tried them, but dismissed them solely because I didn't want to take a gamble with the QC and I figured that they'd be harder to sell if I didn't like them. Maybe I'll eventually some out and realize that they're the best lenses that I've ever owned.
As for Zeiss vs Leica vs CV vs Konica vs LTM. I'm beginning to think that it doesn't really matter. I'll have to try some out and see which ones I like and which ones I don't. Some are just complimentary. Obviously some people prefer Zeiss; others, Leica; etc. Some are probably technically better than others but technically better isn't everything...
Similar threads
